Record the complaint at the hour it lands, put the questions that decide which clock runs in front of a named employee relations officer, and hold the classification for that officer to sign.
A complaint arrives, and the hour it was received is written down before anything else.
02
Notice is what creates the duty, and Faragher, 524 U.S. 775, turns on what happened next.
Reason
03
A class is proposed, and the period under 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(e)(1) is named beside it.
04
A discharge or demotion surfaces, and under Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, the defence is gone.
05
A report reaches someone able to investigate, and 18 U.S.C. 1514A(a)(1)(C) is in play.
Decide
06
An acknowledgement falls due within seven days under Directive (EU) 2019/1937 Article 9.
07
A file holds special-category data, and GDPR Article 9(2)(f) is the condition relied on.
Out
08
A prior report names the same respondent, and the earlier file travels with this one.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
Receipt, the hour and the questions that decide the clock belong to the agent. The classification, the closure and any instruction belong to a named employee relations officer.
Example workflow
One complaint, receipt to determination
AgentHuman
1Complaint receivedHotline call, web form, manager referral, union channel or a message sent straight to a person
2Receipt fixed and timestampedThe channel, the hour, the words as written, the respondent named and the day the clock starts
3Class proposed, clocks namedThe proposed class, each deadline it opens, the questions still unanswered and confidence
4Controls appliedTaxonomy checks, clock-start checks, prior-matter checks and classification confidence
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is determined at any of them — the agent is recording, and the officer lane opens at the confidence gate.
5DecisionSplits at the confidence gate
Class well evidenced
Goes to the named officer to sign.
Anything ambiguous
Adds a counsel read first.
Officer determination
The matter is held with its account, its proposed class and the deadlines already running.
Confirm · Reclassify · Send to counsel review
Determined — by the named officer▼
6Case and records systems updatedOnly where write access and retention policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedClassification stability, acknowledgement timing, officer reclassifications and what review found
Reclassifications
Each officer reclassification is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Deciding conduct was severe or pervasive.
Closing a matter, or calling it resolved.
Issuing a confidentiality instruction.
Ruling a report out of scope.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Timestamp the complaint at the hour it was received.
✓Propose the classification, and name the acknowledgement clock it starts.
✓Carry the acknowledgement deadline where the assigned officer sees it.
✓Hold the matter open for the officer who signs it.
Nothing closes and no confidentiality instruction issues except by the named officer.
Judging whether an affirmative defence survives.
Telling a reporter what the outcome will be.
Deciding that a file is privileged.
Changes to the taxonomy, the routing or the clocks.
Example output
One complaint, annotated
This serves an employee relations team that may have to show, years later, what was received and when — and after Murray v. UBS Securities the employer justifies a later step by clear and convincing evidence; below is one intake exactly as the agent leaves it.
Intake record · single complaintIllustrative example
Complaint
Proposed class
Received
Evidence attached
Confidence
To be signed by
Conduct report, respondent named
Possible protected-category report, unconfirmed
Logged at 09:14, 3 August 2026
Reporter account, one attachment
Held unclassified
The named officer, by name
As receivedTaken from the reporter account and the channel log, and it asserts nothing beyond what actually arrived.
What the intake holdsReporter accountChannel and hourEarlier related file
Why no classification hereSaying what a complaint is in law is a call a named officer makes.
ActionConfirmReclassifySend to counsel review
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold an intake picks up a counsel read before the officer.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
Every complaintFrom the channel it arrived on
03Receipt
Where the wording itself counts
In SEC Release 34-74619 the wording of a confidentiality paragraph read to interviewees was itself the violation of 17 CFR 240.21F-17(a), and nobody had been silenced.
01Approved path
Receiving it is the act
The duty attaches on receipt, and Burlington Northern, 548 U.S. 53, then asks whether the process would deter a reasonable worker from complaining.
02Human review
Checked for, and not found
No published benchmark was found for the accuracy of employee-relations complaint classification, and no authority was found on whether receipt by an automated system is notice. The Board standard for workplace rules is unsettled, so no wording is treated here as safe.
04Build an evidence trail
The complaint, the hour it landed and the officer who classified it stay together.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Case management systemsNAVEX One · Convercent · Ethico Case IQ · HR Acuity · Vault
Reporting channelsHotline · web form · email Manager and steward referrals
Core HR recordsWorkday · SAP SuccessFactors Reporting lines and the prior matters
Agent
Employee relations case intake
Records the receipt Proposes the class Holds for the officer
Legal hold and recordsMatter management · e-discovery Retention and legal-hold schedules
Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.
Agent controls
Six bolts between the model and the file
Six bolts across one door, the last the heaviest. What opens is set out in the map below.
L6 · Outermost — last line of defenceInward → L1 · closest to the model
L6Rollback / safe modeNarrow the agent to recording receipt when evaluation or production signals degrade.Roll back
L5Version monitoringTrack model, prompt and taxonomy rules, and note the version each intake was classified under.Track
L4TraceabilityRecord the hour of receipt, the class proposed and every read of the file, since 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a) protects the reporter.Record
L3Officer releaseHold the matter for the designated representative 2 CCR 11023(b)(5)(A) contemplates; the hold governs release, not whether the class is right.Gate
L2Taxonomy guardrailsTest any standard wording against 17 CFR 240.21F-17(a); Release 34-105542 shows the rule still drawing orders in 2026.Restrict
L1Confidence thresholdsRoute an ambiguous intake to a counsel read before the officer is asked to sign it.Require review
Model coreIntake recorded — the account, the hour, the proposed class and the clocks it opens
L1 – L2Test whether a classification may stand
L3Leaves the determination to a named officer
L4 – L5Keep the complaint and the classification behind it
L6Escalates to a named officer when signals degrade
How Nestack evaluates it
Evaluate the whole intake — not only the class that comes out.
Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.
Surface — the class the case file carries
Depth of coverage ▼
E1Final-output evaluationDid the intake record the hour of receipt and the clock that started with it?
E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent read the right channel, the right history and the live taxonomy?
E3Tool evaluationDid it read and write the correct matter and the correct respondent?
E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence intakes actually attract more officer reclassifications?
E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific complaint classes?
E6Business outcomeHow many intakes were reclassified before the officer signed?
Floor — the duty the employer answers for
Failure modes
Where each failure originates in the agent
Seven failure modes, set at the stage each one first becomes visible.
Agent lifecycleDirection of processing →
01 · Retrieval1 mode
TY-03
Prior notice not retrieved
Earlier reports on the same respondent stay unseen.
Stage gathersThe account, the channel, the hour and the history
02 · Reasoning2 modes
TY-04
Protected-category content missed
A report reads as an ordinary workplace grievance.
TY-06
Tangible action never raised
A discharge or demotion is left out of the account.
Stage proposesThe classification, the clocks started and confidence
03 · Tool / write2 modes
TY-02
Confidentiality text issued by default
A standard paragraph goes out untailored to the matter.
TY-05
Acknowledgement lapses, clock runs
No receipt is sent and the feedback window opens anyway.
Stage writesOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
04 · Output1 mode
TY-01
Closed on a rule, not a determination
A matter is shut with no reasoned ground behind it.
Stage returnsThe class a file carries and a tribunal reads
05 · Change / Version1 mode
TY-07
Analytics accrue with no privilege
Voluntary self-review carries no privilege of its own.
Stage tracksModel, prompt, taxonomy rules and clock config
Sev-1 · a matter closed by the agent aloneSev-2 · a duty attaches and nobody is toldSev-3 · signal degrades, intake held back
A class-level accuracy figure can read clean while unlabelled conduct reports carry most of the reclassifying. Nestack reports the officer-reclassification rate by class, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Unlabelled conduct reports
12.6%
3.7×
Review
Cross-border reports
8.9%
2.6×
Review
Retaliation follow-ons
5.6%
1.6×
Watch
Named-policy complaints
2.5%
0.7×
Normal
Bar: reclassification-rate lift vs. named-policy baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
What an unread complaint costs
A cycle shuts when the account closed before anybody read it is a standing case. That suite is what the next intake window is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Reclassification rate rises on unlabelled conduct reports.
02Diagnose
The matter that sat for a year because the first reader called it a personality clash is worked backwards until one cause is left standing.
03Improve
Cases ship numbered, and the accounts behind them travel attached.
04Verify
Each touched classification case is run again, and one red holds it back.
05Learn
The case is kept, and the intake rules are amended in that same commit.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next intake is measured against a suite one case longer.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, channels, intake classification, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Intake workflow and automation-boundary definition.
02Channel, hotline and case-system review.
03Complaint routing and employee-relations rule mapping.
04Complaint intake capture.
05Classification logic and clock binding.
06Confidence scoring and counsel routing.
07Officer determination workflow.
08Case-system and records integration.
09Classification and notice cases.
10Guardrails and escalation controls.
11Intake-trail instrumentation.
12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne channel, one populationProductionProduction case workflowAdvancedMultiple channels / jurisdictions
Introduced at Pilot
Classification to your taxonomy✓✓✓
Named officer determination✓✓✓
Channel-inventory baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by complaint class—✓✓
Officer review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Case-and-rota integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-jurisdiction notice rules——✓
Multi-stage officer sign-off——✓
Heavy channel traffic——✓
Multi-channel escalation controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, channel coverage, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01Your live intake channels and the officer each one names→Channel capture and receipt timestampingWeek 1
02Representative past complaints and how each was classified→Channel binding, classification logic and the intake baselineWeek 2
03Your notice deadlines and the rota that answers them→Taxonomy mapping, clock binding and the automation boundaryWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Channel, hotline and case-system assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Files you would not want produced→Notice cases and the evaluation roundWeek 4
06What no intake may resolve→Confidence scoring, counsel routing, guardrails and release controlsWeek 3
07A named officer who signs the determination→Officer sign-off workflow, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Each band is as wide as its own phase costs, so the fifth week shows a pair where one would look neater.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Channel discovery, taxonomy mapping and the automation boundaryW2Channel integration and the intake-classification baselineW3Classification logic, clock binding and release controlsW4Evaluation suite, notice cases and failure-mode testingW5Case-system integration, pilot intakes and targeted correctionsW6One intake cycle run under the employee-relations lead, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandA band sits only on the weeks its own work is named in, and the fifth week is genuinely doubled.
At the end of W6Once the intake record validates, Agent Care adopts the agent.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · HR AI agent
Build a case intake agent around the receipt that started the duty.
Show us one complaint channel and the last matter that came through it. If nobody can say what hour it arrived, who was told and which clock started, the record you would rely on is the record you do not have. Receiving it was the act.
